Text Size

-

+

reset

That’s why he went up with a significant Minnesota buy when Romney made a minuscule purchase there, began airing ads in Pennsylvania once they got word that two Republican super PACs were going on TV there and, on Tuesday, confirmed that they’d begin combating Romney super PAC ads in Michigan with their own spots.

“They’ve got a pretty itchy trigger finger,” Beeson quipped.

Democrats subscribe to the better-safe-than-sorry school of thought, but the fact that Obama is airing ads in and, more tellingly, sending Clinton to Minnesota at this late date speaks to the president’s vulnerabilities in places where his campaign hasn’t spent millions defining Romney.

“It’s a function of not having run a campaign in those states,” said Axelrod of the lack of TV action in the Minnesotas and Pennsylvanias. “Romney’s highest exposure there has come in the last month.”

Of course, Chicago’s “insurance policy” is a euphemism for rearguard action in the minds of Republicans.

That the president is shoring up traditionally Democratic states that he easily carried four years ago underscores how much more difficult this campaign has been for him compared with 2008. He stretched the map so much four years ago and the economy has made him so much more vulnerable this time that he’s shoring up states that McCain abandoned in early October (Michigan) and never really competed in (Minnesota).

But given that they knew the economy alone would make this election harder than four years ago, why didn’t they move earlier to lock down these blue states?

The answer may be because they didn’t know if they’d have the cash to do so and still fully fund the core battlegrounds in the final push.

Now, money is no issue for either an Obama campaign seeing troubling polling data in heretofore safe states and can’t be too cautious enough or a Romney campaign that wants to project confidence and be prepared just in case the bottom really does fall out on the incumbent.

“This is what happens when you have a gun and too many bullets to shoot,” Murphy said.

And the shooting may not be done. A senior Romney official said they’re also eyeing New Mexico, a state Republicans had previously pulled staff from and in which neither campaign has aired ads.

“The Albuquerque [market] covers 86 percent of the state and the race is less than 5 percent there right now,” the official said.

Romney is trying to play hocus pocus with the the electoral math. You don't try to get to 300 by entering PA when you don't even have the 270 you need to win.

The moves into PA and MN are head fakes to get Obama to play defense there with his slightly more limited budget. They also show that the Romney campaign is desperate to find the opening that never appeared in OH.

Oh wow Politico it is about the game strategy and here I thought that you might actually hold the candidates accountable for their actions and words! I should have known better because that is all you play also the game in order to keep both sides happy. One day the Free Press will meet it's obligation to the electorate and became a pillar in a free republic once again.

Do you feel no responsibility in your reporting, is this all it is to you - the game, the strategy?

Clearly flip flopping Romney has delusions of Grandeur. He was always an unappealing candidate and now even more so. President Obama is doing an excellent job dealing with the Sandy disaster. He is a proven leader which even some of his opponents are honest enough to admit to. The President has well and truly earned his stripes and deserves a second term.

It seems Jonathan Martin has been seduced into playing political head games. We are painstakingly walked through the he said/he said dialogue and what each point and counterpoint might mean. In truth, none of it means anything discernible this year.

Both parties are nearly as rich as King Midas, so spending money is merely covering their fears. Let's face it, if wealthy enough, both parties would run all their ads in all the states, just to be on the safe side. No one wants to lose an election with a mountain of money left in the bank (that could have been used to win an election).

Since Romney & Ryan have the corporate one percent and more plutocrats wanting to buy this election, Team Romney has more money to burn and burn it they will. That's why they are expanding in ad runs -- they can afford to, not because they have any momentum -- they probably don't. (We all know how Republicans are given to lying.) Likewise, Team Obama can afford to run ads in safe states without it being in any way a defensive move or sign of worry, as it might in other years when funds are tight. We should see a lot of wasted money spent by Team Romney, for Romney is of the crowd that lights cigars with hundred-dollar bills and leaves money hanging out of their pockets for fun and to brashly show others they have money to burn (and we don't).

Even when resources are low, some political teams waste money and personal face-time out of desperation to create an illusion they hope will seduce lemming voters and propel them to victory. Take John McCain, for example; he spent three times as many days campaigning in Pennsylvania than Obama and, as Martin points out, even campaigned there in person in the last days. Yet McCain lost Pennsylvania by 13%. Obama won 56% to 43%. Sometimes bluff & blow is all a losing politician has.

My 33-year-old son, who was an Obama supporter in 2008, changed his mind and early-voted for Romney this year. He thinks Obama has done poorly with managing the economy, and is particularly dissatisfied with the current job market. If he is any indication, there is truth to the assertion that younger people are not as enthralled by Mr. Obama as in 2008.

So here's the story...."burned a few bucks you can afford to lose". While millions of Americans just lost everything and so many are in desperate straits, the campaigns blow through a billion dollars apiece. Thank you, Republicans on the Supreme Court.

It truly is a mad, mad, world and if Mittwit gets in everything will belong to the rich boys as soon as he appoints more Republicans to the Court.

BTW, question for Jonathan Martin....was this supposed to be both sides of the story? You only showed your right wing side which is what you always do.

Just like the Shellacking of 2010, the TEA Party will come out of the woodwork, high flood waters, electricity or not, to assure this country returns to the right track.

No self-respecting tea partier will vote for Mitt Romney. Romney is the guy that wants to expand Medicare by $716 billion dollars by over-paying providers. President Obama saved that $716 billion and expanded the solvent lifespan of Medicare by eight years, to 2024. Romney's V.P. pick Ryan included that $716 billion in savings in his budget, the budget nearly every Republican on Capitol Hill voted for. No one agrees with money-wasting Romney. We want to save money, reduce spending and pay down our deficits and debt. Romney is going in the wrong direction. Same with the defense budget. Adding two trillion to the budget for ships the Navy doesn't need or want is taking us farther from balanced budgets, not closer. It is radically increasing our deficit, not eliminating it. Even the tea partiers agree with President Obama that we should rake back the four billion in corporate welfare paid annually to five oil companies that make $115 billion each year. And cut out other wasteful corporate welfare too, like rewarding companies that ship jobs overseas. No, tea partiers never liked Romney and for good reasons. He'll get no groundswell from them, nor does he deserve one.

(Of course, all I wrote assumes tea partiers are people of actual principles, nor merely corporate shills or robo-Republicans.)

Article: The Barack Obama side: There they go again. This is 2008 in replay mode, when John McCain had no path to 270 electoral votes and made a desperate gambit to try and put Pennsylvania in play. Romney needs to project Big Mo to paper over his struggles in the core battleground states. Nice head fake Mitt — but we don’t buy it.

Which side is blowing smoke? The truth of the matter rests, as it usually does, somewhere in the middle.

The truth will NEVER be found in campaign rhetoric. If Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota were "in the bag" for Obama, he wouldn't be paying so much attention to those states. This week, Obama had his surrogate, Monica's boyfriend, out campaiging for him in Minnesota. That's right, MINNESOTA!

Clinton has been one of Obama's favorite weapons,or maybe "tools" would be a better choice of words. If liberal Minnesota is in play--and it MUST be--the ACORN activistis in BIG TROUBLE!

A question for POLITICO....

When will you start covering the biggest story of the year--the Benghazi cover up? If Obama wins re-election (God forbid) he may still need to be prosecuted. Why doesn't POLITICO think that's worth covering?

The president does not manage the economy-- that would be socialism and, despite the shrill keening of some, this country's economic model is nowhere near a socialist model.

Government doesn't create jobs, despite most politicians' claims--including Obama's and Romney's--that it can.

This most recent recession and recovery were caused by, guided by, and hampered, by the housing market and its effect on consumer spending. When the housing market finishes its correction, and housing starts to appreciate again, the economy will improve for all of us, no matter which candidate is elected.

So there is that prize for each party to consider ... whomever is elected on November 6 will most likely have an improving economic record to brag about and they certainly will--brag that is--despite the fact that they had nothing whatever to do with that improvement.